London Bridge

Probably best the news don't mention it, Theresa might want them in Government.

 

Another ignorant post. PO is no lover of militant Islam.

Whatever the stated religious reasons, ultimately underneath there will be complex local reasons and maybe mischief from abroad that religious lunacy is then used to justify. Why not read up on it so you can tell us something interesting instead of vaguely provoking in the hope you can blame a political opponent?

 

Which is exactly what I said.

You know better, as wanting Sharia law over there is just a cover for interference from the West. You need to put them right.

Sarcasm intended.

 

Out of interest @zztop what's you view on the whole DUP link up?

 

Wrong thread.

But I dont know enough about it, what will be promised (if anything), what conditions (if any), so i cant comment on it with much knowledge yet. but I do think there are bigger matters at stake than differences in opinion over some areas of local policy.

But if it is a loose agreement, then it isn't much different from pairs or groups getting together to vote against the government in this country or Parties in countries all over the world that link up or partner others in order to provide some sort of means to govern. DUP are even having to consider some sort of link with Sinn Fein, for example.

But, at the moment, I am still thinking that May should go.

 

If purely the desire for sharia law is enough to make people kill - what is the mechanism Prof Top? Why is it so successful as an idea for making people bind together and kill in this instance alone? Why doesn't the Anglican church have the same effect, or other varieties of Islam at different times and in different places?

I know your motivation is that you think any mea culpa from the west, any examination of the west's behaviour or search for causation is more grist to the mill for the average jihadist nutjob, but this may be because you do not understand the criticism being made. Grievances are just a part of the mix. Favouring brutal theological regimes that manufacture hatred, extraordinary corruption and poverty etc - these create the conditions even before unwise interventions

 

A rare and Wenger like admission.

Ok, imagine it was Labour and Sein Fein.

 

You're right, wrong thread. I'll take it over to the right one.

 

I read and listen to arguments from both sides. But as you fully admit, you only mix with people of your own political persuasion, so it seems the only disagreements you get are on here.

As regards the your questions, I can't get inside the heads of any of these people with any experience. I cant think of anything, political, religious or anything else that would drive me to purposely kill totally innocent people unless there was a clear "greater good" such as saving even more innocent people elsewhere. In this particular matter, I choose to believe ISIS who have clearly told us the reasons for their actions, over someone like you who admits only listens to political dogma from their own side and who jumps on any excuse to attack the West.

 

The trouble is, because you will not explore the reasons, you will just cheerlead the same idiocy on the basis that 'we had a go'. And the cycle will just continue.

It is quite clear what ISIS have attempted. It is a Final Solution to the problems of Sunni Muslims in those regions, whether or not other Sunnis want it, or if it is rational and like Hitler's one it would only feel safe if it defeated the whole world. It is madness and it is now self-sustaining. But the conditions for it to have emerged, for it to be a philosophy to be seized upon, did not come, like the Nazis didn't either, from nowhere.

It was weakened by the end of the Iraqi occupation and the US 'push', but unfortunately we have allies in that region and gameplans, like the undermining of Assad, that breathed new life into it. It then turned to civil war and crisis and blowback. Can you not see that?

 

What do you mean? I have explored the reasons, in a number of ways. I just don't agree with you, and neither do Islamic State themselves. Clearly when their reasons differ to yours, I am not merely "cheerleading that we had a go". I am listening to others. You could just as easily blame Communist USSR for getting involved in Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the Middle East, or the presence of British troops in NI for the problems between Catholics and Protestants that has actually existed for 600 years or more.

The differences between Sunni and Shi-ite Muslims has existed for centuries, way before we got involved and ISIS's struggle is against all non-believers- and your views are mainly driven by your hatred of the west.

I choose not to agree with you.

 

You need to stop getting your scientific facts out of a Xmas cracker and start reading solid texts . If you want to believe in a God that's fine nothing wrong with that if it's not imposed upon other people , just don't convince yourself it's a scientific expression.

In fact the whole point of faith is that is non deterministic.